Evidence for God from Science

Its amazing to me that some people think Psalms 90 verse 4 think it reads that "a day with the Lord is the same as 1 thousand years, not a thousand years" and use it to predict when Christs return will be.

I know I wasn't speculating when Christ will return but...

I'm having a hard time understanding your post Wayne, can you post it again and elaborate?

How does it read and how do people miss use it?

If I misused it... sorry

I am sorry about that. What I meant was that people take every scripture in the Bible literally and even Ps. 90 verse 4. I have heard a speaker say that there are 7000 years from the beginning of the world until Christs return. Thats a bit far fetched. The point of that verse is that all time belongs to God whether it be young time or old time. Does that help?

Just came across these unresponded posts from way back, so thought I would produce some replies (if they still matter).

waynes world wrote:If I read the Hebrew of evening and morning in Genesis One what I notice is that evening is mentioned first which would make no sense for the sunrise to sunset argument. I suggest that it was actually the time from sunset to sunrise is closer to what the most literal translation that we have. If you notice in John 11:9 Jesus said that there were 12 hours in a day, not 24.

Yes, you are correct. The words for the closing off of each day is "evening and morning, n day." So sunset to sunrise make sense, however it is noted by YEC advocates like Duncan and Hall (who I quoted earlier on) that this is just a literary device used to signify the end of God's work on a particular day and the beginning of a new day. Thus, according to Duncan and Hall, God actually creates from the sunrise of any given day, ends in the evening, and then begins creating again on the following day at sunrise.

Rich Deem, an OEC Day-Age proponent, also has an article I would highly recommend on the GodandScience.org website which goes into this more about the meaning of the words "evening and morning" (a strange combination don't you think?) at http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html.

I may be getting off-track here, but am I reading it correctly when you say there should be only twelve hours in a day, not 24? Yes, God starts His days when the sun sets, and ends it when the sun sets. That would be a period of about 24 hours, would it not? Yes, Jesus stated that there are twelve hours in a day, but in verse 10, He also clarified that there was a difference between day and night. The "day" He was talking about was day LIGHT, not a full "day". If I have misunderstood the question please correct me here.

jenwat3 wrote:I may be getting off-track here, but am I reading it correctly when you say there should be only twelve hours in a day, not 24? Yes, God starts His days when the sun sets, and ends it when the sun sets. That would be a period of about 24 hours, would it not? Yes, Jesus stated that there are twelve hours in a day, but in verse 10, He also clarified that there was a difference between day and night. The "day" He was talking about was day LIGHT, not a full "day". If I have misunderstood the question please correct me here.

The point is that the word for day in the Hebrew, "yom" can be used in different contexts to mean different things. Most frequently it is used to mean a 24 hour day and Hebrew culture measured a day from sunset to sunset (which if you really want to nit pick was not usually a perfect 24 hour day and varied by 4 minutes on average in either direction depending on the season), or in the manner Jesus uses it in the passage to refer to just the daylight portion of a day or about 12 hours, and then also as a period of time.

We do similar things in English with the word day. We may speak about the day of Napolean for instance to mean the span of influence he had in history.

More specifically I believe the point is that the context of the usage of the word is determinative of how it is intended in scripture.

Quoting YEC scholars, who would be expected to apply the 24 hour meaning to yom in Genesis 1 who point out that the formula evening and morning speaks to specific times rather than 24 hour days on that basis demontrates the grammatical basis is not as cut and dry as some Young Earth proponents would want to make it by appealing to this formula as proof of 24 hour days. Apparently the scholard Kurieuo is citing believe in 24 hour days but they are objective enough (at least from an OEC point of view) to allow that this in and of itself is not sufficient to make their point.

When there's agreement on a point even if the final conclusions differ, it's a pretty strong element toward coming to some sort of agreement and it hopefully, from my point of view as an OEC (who used to be YEC) it will at least encourage YEC supporters to pause and consider if there is room for seeing this in this context perhaps there are grounds to examine other elements as well and consider if they are being understood correctly.

Aside from the mantra of some (not all) YEC supporters, that theirs is the only "Literal" view, OEC proponents also believe in a literal reading of Scripture and Genesis 1. It is our interpretation or understandings of the passage that differ, not our commitment to the inspiration of scripture. That doesn't mean the issue isn't important. It means to me however, that there should be care used in avoiding equating one's own understanding of a particular passage with the inspiration of scripture itself. There are places where I believe that is warranted on issues that related directly to salvation and the person of Christ for instance. I don't think that this particular issue, important as it is, raises to that level.

Strix wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:
Firstly, whether you'd agree or not, I see that your position of each "day" being "24 hours" does not really differ that much from mine in that you believe creation consists of six epochs. The only difference is that you inject 24 hours into the meaning of each epoch, whereas I inject an unspecified period of time within each epoch.

Actually I would disagree. I think our positions differ quite strikingly in both concept and foundation (and let me say here that it is never my intent to misrepresent your viewpoints and I fully expect you to correct me when I do).

Certainly our positions are different. And I was not pretending they were not. However, you quite evidentially inject a 24 hour period of time into the text where yom (day) in Genesis 1 is used. So according to other YEC proponents like Duncan and Hall your interpretation of the text is not literally based. To quote them again:

the use of the "evening and morning" formula is a hard brake for those views that propose nonliteral readings. Taking those words as they were intended to be taken leads to only one sound conclusion on the length of the days and repudiates all rivals.

As you ignore the "evening and morning" formula to avoid the problem for the YEC position I presented in my very first post of this thread (that is, no sunrise is possible to begin day one if Earth had not yet been created therefore day cannot be taken as a literal solar day), you are apparently proposing a "non-literal" reading of Genesis 1 even if you subscribe to a 24-hour period of time for a "day".

Thus, if you reject a Day-Age interpretation of yom (translated as "day") representing an unspecified period within which God worked based upon it not representing a plain understanding of "day", then your interpretation is no more literal since you reject also the plain understanding of day on Earth being represented by sunrise to sunset or sunrise to sunrise.

Strix wrote:I would hope that when we finish studying the Bible, that we can come to conclusions that do not harbor the words "inject" or "interpretation". God does not have any interpretations, only truth.

Ok, so we are to understand your interpretation of Scripture as God speaking? Forgive me if I come across harsh in saying I balk at such a cult-like mindset coming from anyone who claims to speak for God. I have a Bible, and I can refer back to the original language if need be, and I believe my interpretation of Scripture is the truth God inspired.

Strix wrote:If we read His word, then we should know and understand His truth... not our interpretation of it.

I believe my interpretation, which is based on reason (as encouraged by Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5:21), and which I believe God lead me to and blessed me with when I stumbled across the GodandScience.org website, is knowledge of truth as revealed to us in God's Word.

Strix wrote:This is not to say that we will understand fully all that Scripture contains, but where God is silent, we should be silent. God's lack of elaboration does not give us license to do it in His place.

So where Scripture does not say in Genesis 1:3 that God created a separate light in the heavens, or God's own radiance lighted the Earth, before the Sun was created on day four (according to a standard YEC interpretation), we should be silent and not inject our own ideas? The Day-Age interpretation makes much better sense of the Genesis 1 creation account to me, especially since it does not require us to elaborated our own ideas into what is not said.

Strix wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Similarly, you also make the same mistake many YECs accuse Day-Age proponents of (if indeed it is a mistake) in that you do not take a "day" as a literal day. For a "day" only has the property of being 24 hours, because the length of an Earth day takes 24 hours to complete. And a property (i.e., 24 hours) of an object (i.e., day) does not mean the property is the object. Without a literal Earth day existing, 24 hours would be void of any meaning related to "day." ... Surely under the scope of Duncan and Hall's argument here against anti-YECs, your own interpretation is also at fault? For what do you make of the "evening and morning" phrase if a literal sunset and sunrise as they believe does not exist?

Two things:
1) At this point, I do take a "day" as a "literal day", (or, if you like, a literal day's timespan)...

Interesting you had to clarify "literal day" as a timespan when in fact a literal day is all about Earth's rotation and the Sun. So I believe you are being inconsistent if you think your interpretation takes "day" to be more literal than my own.

Strix wrote:2) As to "sunrise and sunset", my previous posts were emphasizing that the literalness was absent (e.g., the literal star and the literal form of the Earth), not that there was not an equivalency.

I am not sure I understand what you are saying and your example did not help matters. Hopefully my response is not too late for you to clarify what you mean. What I gather here is that you are now somewhat confirming that the "evening and morning" is not intended to be taken literally? This would certainly resolve the problem my first post in this thread presents to YECs, however if you are now saying literalness was absent with "evening and morning" it now seems to me you are just interpreting what is meant to be taken literally and what isn't to fit in with your own interpretation of creation.

Furthermore, I see this diminishes your understanding of a day being a "literal" 24 hour day rather than a "literal" unspecified period of time. To re-emphasize, a literal day in English speaking terms is depending upon Earth's rotation and it's Sun. Thus, to attach a period of time to yom in Genesis 1 while denying a sunrise existed in day 1 (up until day four when the Sun, according many YEC interpretations), is well... quite selective and arbitrary. Certainly, such is not as plain a reading as the Day-Age interpretation in my opinion.

Strix wrote:Let me be perfectly clear... The natural world is not the danger. It is not even the issue. I believe that nature does express the deity of God. That is a Scripturally sound concept. The problem is human wisdom (1 Cor. 1:20, 1 Cor. 2:12-16, Isaiah 55:8-9, Job 26:14; 38:1-4, Deut. 4:19). The danger is when we equate science (our understanding of nature) with the Bible.

And again... the Bible is whatever you, a human being, interpret it to mean, right? Forgive me again if I do not accept your interpretation as being on par with God's Word. I prefer to follow Paul's advice in testing everything (including the YEC position) in order to sift through and hold on to what is good and true. And the Day-Age OEC interpretation I have found to be more faithful to both Scripture as well as what we understand about the world around us.

Off-subject, what are your views on the creation week in Genesis 1?

jenwat3 wrote:Off-subject, what are your views on the creation week in Genesis 1?

I have present mine in the thread actually titled Young-Earth Creationism. It is the first post you read at that link. I am sure Canuckster's are similar.

jenwat3 wrote:I may be getting off-track here, but am I reading it correctly when you say there should be only twelve hours in a day, not 24? Yes, God starts His days when the sun sets, and ends it when the sun sets. That would be a period of about 24 hours, would it not?

Read the Genesis creation account and pay attention to how at the end describing the work God performed on each day the words "evening and morning, n day" are used. Then let me know what you think.

Yom itself is used in Scripture to be understood as the daylight period, a full day (day and night), or as an unspecified period.

Recommend resource: Genesis Clearly Teaches that the Days Were Not 24 Hours

The reason I asked was because I am both a OEC and a YEC at the same time. From the time the earth was created, in Genesis 1:1, to the time in Genesis 1:2, there was actually a long period of time in between the two. To clarify, God created the earth. This was before man was created. It was during the time of the dinosaurs. Between the dinosaur age, and when man was created, this is the time when Lucifer rebelled and God cast him down to earth with his demons. Naturally Satan did not go quietly, and there was a big struggle, which killed everything on earth, and made the earth "without form, and void". So that brings us to verse 2, when God recreated the earth. It may sound a bit far-fetched, but this is my theory, anyway. Just thought I'd share.

jenwat3 wrote:Off-subject, what are your views on the creation week in Genesis 1?

Jen, Kurieuo and I are very very close on most issues related to Old Earth creation, I'm just not as succinct and articulate as my friend for whom I have a great deal of respect.

I was raised as a young earth creationist and as a young man came to realize it was not as cut and dried as I was trained and I made the move to an Old Earth Creationist.

jenwat3 wrote:The reason I asked was because I am both a OEC and a YEC at the same time. From the time the earth was created, in Genesis 1:1, to the time in Genesis 1:2, there was actually a long period of time in between the two. To clarify, God created the earth. This was before man was created. It was during the time of the dinosaurs. Between the dinosaur age, and when man was created, this is the time when Lucifer rebelled and God cast him down to earth with his demons. Naturally Satan did not go quietly, and there was a big struggle, which killed everything on earth, and made the earth "without form, and void". So that brings us to verse 2, when God recreated the earth. It may sound a bit far-fetched, but this is my theory, anyway. Just thought I'd share.

So you subscribe to a Gap interpretation?

jenwat3 wrote:The reason I asked was because I am both a OEC and a YEC at the same time. From the time the earth was created, in Genesis 1:1, to the time in Genesis 1:2, there was actually a long period of time in between the two. To clarify, God created the earth. This was before man was created. It was during the time of the dinosaurs. Between the dinosaur age, and when man was created, this is the time when Lucifer rebelled and God cast him down to earth with his demons. Naturally Satan did not go quietly, and there was a big struggle, which killed everything on earth, and made the earth "without form, and void". So that brings us to verse 2, when God recreated the earth. It may sound a bit far-fetched, but this is my theory, anyway. Just thought I'd share.

That's not an uncommon position. It is commonly called the Gap Theory and technically it is an Old Earth Position although it has elements of both.

I do believe in the gap theory to an extent. As far as a flood destroying everything, I don't know about that.